Throw In Contact

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by CDurham

It was purely accidental. However, if it causes B2 to a disadvantage it has to be something. But would it fall under the automatic "Intentional" for contacting the player throwing the ball in?

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to A for a throw in (can run the endline).

I agree with not fitting the intentional, but in my previous post I can see the other side also. However, it has to be something if it causes a disadvantage and I don't know if what you described would work IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

While I can agree with not going intentional, I don't think you can just go with a do-over. Call the common foul. Being clumsy may not be illegal, but it also doesn't absolve the new defender from responsibility for the contact.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

While I can agree with not going intentional, I don't think you can just go with a do-over. Call the common foul. Being clumsy may not be illegal, but it also doesn't absolve the new defender from responsibility for the contact.

So a common foul can be called for contact on the other side of the throw in plane?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CDurham

So a common foul can be called for contact on the other side of the throw in plane?

Why not?

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

I'm not disagreeing I have just never seen it. Which again doesnt mean it can't happen. In my mind, I guess from case plays of a player "reaching in" and fouling the throw inner results in an Intentional Foul, I am thinking it can only by intentional.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

I don't see how you could do that. If A1 accidentally contacts B1 in the process of getting up and reentering the court, I see no reason why you couldn't have a common foul. If he tries to make a play and contacts the thrower, I think you could go with the intentional, no matter where A1 was standing when the contact occurred.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see how you could do that. If A1 accidentally contacts B1 in the process of getting up and reentering the court, I see no reason why you couldn't have a common foul. If he tries to make a play and contacts the thrower, I think you could go with the intentional, no matter where A1 was standing when the contact occurred.

I like that description and I think that is the missing link. Accidental but causing disadvantage = Common

Making an attempt at the ball and contact = Intentional

[refiator]

Think about the nature and intent of the rule and act. I can't see even a common foul in this case. .

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see how you could do that. If A1 accidentally contacts B1 in the process of getting up and reentering the court, I see no reason why you couldn't have a common foul. If he tries to make a play and contacts the thrower, I think you could go with the intentional, no matter where A1 was standing when the contact occurred.

It depends on the situation - too many unknown variables. Was B2 standing over/too close to A1 for him to be able to get up without interfering. Was A1 slow in getting up indicating a possible injury? In that case, if B2 hasn't yet inbounded the ball, stopping play for a possible injury is fully justified as MTD indicated. It's one of those HTBT situations, and since it's purely hypothetical there's no right answer. It could be common, could be intentional or could be nothing depending on the specifics of the situation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

It depends on the situation - too many unknown variables. Was B2 standing over/too close to A1 for him to be able to get up without interfering. Was A1 slow in getting up indicating a possible injury? In that case, if B2 hasn't yet inbounded the ball, stopping play for a possible injury is fully justified as MTD indicated. It's one of those HTBT situations, and since it's purely hypothetical there's no right answer. It could be common, could be intentional or could be nothing depending on the specifics of the situation.

I thought that was what we were doing, covering the variables. If A1 is attempting to return to the court and B1 makes a point of contacting him, you could conceivably have a foul on B1.

[Camron Rust]

I'm not calling an IF on this one....but I'm also not letting B1 lose the ball.

I'm inclined to just kill the play and restart.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not calling an IF on this one....but I'm also not letting B1 lose the ball.

I'm inclined to just kill the play and restart.

+1 with Camron and Tim if the contact was deemed accidental without intent.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Agree with just another ref - it doesn't fit the intentional definition. If it was purely accidental, I'd probably just blow the whistle and give it back to B for a throw in (can run the endline).

+1

Even though the ball is live in this situation, I see it as akin to dead-ball contact: ignore it unless the foul would be intentional or flagrant.